I would respectfully disagree with you sir.
Lets look at what is needed in a self defense gun. Forget wants and desires but only what you really need.
1. Reliability. It absolutely positively has to go bang when you need it to.
2. Safety. It absolutely positively cannot go bang when you don't want it to.
3. Simplicity. At 3:00 am when you half asleep or terrified beyond any horror move, with your heart pounding between your ears, can you still manipulate the firing controls.
4. Stopping power. If (god forbid) you ever do need to shoot a perp, you want a caliber capable of stopping an attacker. Now!
For a carry gun I would also add:
5. Size & Weight. It has to be small enough and light enough, that you actually have it with you when you need it.
The two things everybody wants to throw in there are:
Capacity. Forget Hollywood for a second and look at life in the real world. Your gonna need one, maybe two shots and the situation will be over.
Accuracy. While 2 inch groups at 25 yards is great, most self defense situations happen at much closer ranges. Like 10 feet or less and lets face it, were not talking about targets the size of prairie dogs here.
When you put aside your prejudices and look at it from a more logical standpoint, the revolver becomes a much more viable self defense weapon.
Jeff
Jeff,
I do thoroughly enjoy discourse and will happily entertain and debate your points.
1. Agreed. It is imperative that a tool works when required, period.
2. Agreed, again. However, most modenr firearms only go bang when the switch is thrown. Tort lawyers and civil courts have done their darndest to make sure that product liability suits are dreaded more than the end of the world (which is a personal thing, coming for each of us when our time is up on this planet).
3. Agreed, the trigger is about the only control I want to manipulate. I do not liek safeties, hence my love for revolvers. However, many autoloaders exist on the market that when loaded only require pulling (fine, squeezing of...) of the trigger to release ballistic answers.
4. Kind of! Handgun stopping power is a bit silly, as they are all equally bad. Unless one is deploying the 460 magnum, they are all pretty close in their abysmal performance. The difference is where the bullet is put and when. I would further postulate that the majority of stick up men consist of chicken **** and do not have the balls to face down a real fight. Exceptions do exist to my observation. They are rare, real resistance will often create a battle of wills in which one who is fighting for profit loses to one who is fighting for survival. This is not always the case.
5. Agreed, again. However, the difference between say a S&W 642 and a Kahr P9 or a Smith M&P9c is insignificant. The M&P and Kahr are easier to learn to shoot well and hold more ammo. It is also clear that ballistically clear that the 9mm performs better than the .38 special.
I carry a revolver for defense, and one of my two carry guns is a 642. However, I have thousands of hours of range time and manipulation experience with a defensive handgun. I recognize that a weapon like the 642 is for experts only, it is difficult to shoot well. The novice or casual user will be better served based on your points above.
Take the 642 and the M&P9c as equals, I have shot both extensively. The M&P carries more than twice the amount of ammo without a reloas, has a longer sight radius, has less recoil energy transmitted to the had and has an easier reload procedure.
Full disclosure, I carry a 642 mostly because I have trained with it and shot the piss out of it. I do not reccommend it to anyone, as it takes quite a bit of work to run it effectively. I am shifting to a Kahr P9 because it is the modern version of the 642 with more firepower and is easier to master. I understand that no sword will win a battle, the holder does...
